Whether Articles 8-2 and 8-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State are invalid beyond the scope delegated by the parent law, which are specific criteria for determining whether a person who has a disability in light of the function of the city falls under the category of "persons who

Article 14 (3) [Attached Table 3] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, and Articles 8-2 and 8-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act

Supreme Court Decision 2004Du11442 Delivered on January 28, 2005, Supreme Court Decision 2005Du1657 Delivered on April 27, 2006

Plaintiff (Attorney Lee In-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Cheongju Veterans Branch Office

Daejeon High Court Decision 2003Nu856 delivered on June 10, 2004

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Article 14(3) [Attachment 3] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree") provides for a person who has a disability rating and an overall criteria for disability rating by dividing the "person who has a disability in Gyeongdo in one section among the three sections of the same bridge into class 7-807 of the disability rating." Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that "matters concerning the method of determining physical disability, etc." shall be prescribed by Ordinance of the Prime Minister. Accordingly, the detailed criteria for determining whether a person is a "person who has a disability in Gyeongdo" shall be determined by Ordinance of the Prime Minister, and Articles 8-2 and 8-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 797, Aug. 12, 2005; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Rule") shall not be restricted by more than 1/4 of the Act and the Enforcement Rule No. 208.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, and the plaintiff's ground of appeal is without merit

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Article 14(3) [Attachment Table 3] of the Enforcement Decree provides that the degree of disability ratings of the Plaintiff shall be classified as Grade 7 807 among the three sections of one bridge, and that where there are physical disabilities not provided for in the degree of the body of the above [Attachment Table 3], the disability ratings shall be determined in accordance with the degree of the physical disability as provided for in the above Table according to the degree of the disability. The determination of disability ratings by physical parts in [Attachment Table 3] of Article 8-3 of the Enforcement Rule provides that the physical area of the Plaintiff is limited by not less than 1/4 of the physical area of the above Section, and that the standard physical area of the public prosecutor's disability and physical parts of the same Section shall be limited by not less than 00 more-10 more-1 more-20 more-1 more-1 more-1 more-1 more-1 more-1 more-1 more-2.

The judgment below to the same purport is correct, and there is no error of incomplete deliberation affecting the judgment, as alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)